User talk:Γνῶθι σεαυτόν/Archive 2

October 2015
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, we've explained our policies on living people, and you very clearly don't give a damn. Game over. I have blocked you and revoked talk page access to prevent you reinstating the pictures. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * With both the blocked editor's and the blocking admin's agreements, I've copied their appeal on-wiki and reactivated TPA. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  08:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Was the reason for blocking given in the unblock request (images of Victoria Nuland) the real reason, or was there something else?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * JzG hasn't been active in some time. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't simply over BLPVIO. Archived ANI threads to examine are here, here, and here. I don't know whether feels predisposed towards making any comments as to Againstdisinformation's DE patterns at this point in time, but it's worth taking a look at the copious numbers of deleted comments, warnings, and compulsive pinging activities on this talk page. I certainly wouldn't say that he was an 'evil' editor, but RIGHTGREATWRONGS was the primary issue. BLPVIO was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, what can I say. I find Againstdisinformation a rather charming editor. Unfortunately they wear their POV on their sleeve, way too much according to some editors and, obviously, some admins. I'm not the best person to judge here;, given AD's edits and subsequent block, one might think this warrants a note on AN, in part because if Guy hadn't blocked, we probably would have seen a community block. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now that this is a very complicated issue. I would need to spend several days just on this case in order to understand all aspects of it. Should I copy this unblock request to WP:AN and hear comments from other editors who are more familar with the case? Is that a good idea?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the name Againstdisinformation unfair, because it says that the opponents disinform . All critics has been removed from here. It's accesible however by the history. Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for heeding my appeal. I think it would be more proper to let answer to you himself but, since other editors have made comments, I will give you my interpretation. Following an exchange between an editor and me on RT (TV network), where he suggested that I was working for the Russian Government and I replied that he was a crackpot, asked  to “swing (your) cudgel around a little bit, just for show.” He subsequently left a warning on my talk page ending with “please try to temper your sense of injustice and remember that Wikipedia is a place where calm discussion achieves much, and angry posturing achieves nothing other than a speedy enforced exit.” As an afterthought, he came back to my talk page and removed the images, stating that “WP:BLP applies in all namespaces. I find the images droll, but have removed them because apart from anything else the hair colour suggests they are taken a long time apart”. When I logged in, I did not immediately understand that this was a BLP violation and I must confess that I was slightly irritated to be lectured while the editor who had first suggested I was a Russian agent did not even get as much as a slap on the wrist. So, I reinstated the images. This resulted immediately in my indefinite block. I take full responsibility for this. However, I would like to stress that the pictures were placed by another editor. I did not particularly want to have them; I just found them droll, like. Besides, in more than a month, no one ever complained about them. Concerning the issues raised in the comments, they can be summarized as 1) RIGHTGREATWRONGS, 2) POV, 3) my username. Here is my answer: I chose my username, an admittedly ill-advised choice, to make my purpose clear: free Wikipedia from dubious assertions that one can read in the media but which have no place in an encyclopedia. I never sought to “right great wrongs”. Instead, I have always strived to preserve Wikipedia’s neutrality and reliability. I have to stress that in all edits I made; my “POV” finally prevailed. I edited Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without encountering much opposition. However, I ran into trouble as soon as I started editing articles related to either Russia or Ukraine. I faced fierce opposition when I removed from Yulia Tymoshenko the false statement that the ECHR had recognized that she had been tortured. No one now disputes that I was right. Then in another article’s talk page (which I am not allowed to mention), I contended that we cannot use the fact that a journalist has been murdered on the birthday of a country’s ruler to insinuate that either he ordered the murder or it was a present for him. I was then accused for the first time to be paid by that country for editing. I admit that, after that, my comments were rather sarcastic and it resulted in a ban from the topic. However agreed with me and the innuendo is now removed. The last edit I made which ultimately resulted in my indefinite block was about RT (TV network). I edited away the assertion, made in a list of RT’s guests, that Nigel Farage was a “Putin’s admirer”. This started an enormous controversy on the article’s talk page which eventually led to my indefinite block. I have strictly no feeling about either Farage or Putin and it should be observed that, here too, my “POV” prevailed and “Putin’s admirer” has been removed. could confirm, having participated to the discussions about the last two articles I mention. My final point is that, while I have made mistakes, I have never tried to harm Wikipedia and I have committed only one incivility: calling someone a “crackpot”, but that was after being accused for the second time of being a Russian agent. I want to say that I have enjoyed the discussions I have had, even though they have sometimes been heated. I have never wished anyone ill and I have even liked some of the editors who oppose me. I bear them no grudge, but it saddens me to see that some of them want me out. I apologize for having been so long, but I wanted to give you a clear picture. Againstdisinformation (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User JzG described conditions for reversing his administrative actions on the top of his talkpage, and this is opening an ANI/AN thread - exactly as noted by Drmies above. Should such thread be opened and user unblocked? If I were an admin, I would not do it because (a) the block by JzG was clearly reasonable, (b) in the statement above Againstdisinformation does not want to admit that he and another user were making fun of a living person they do not like for political reasons, (c) in the statement above Againstdisinformation continue bringing the ridiculous claims about "agent(s)", and in fact it was only him who continuously debated this claim over and over again on various talk pages including ANI, RT TV and others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AD, I'm a bit pressed for time: I will get back to you, hopefully before dinner. I'm not living it up in the meantime--my nap already went down the drain. I'll be back shortly. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I sincerely appreciate it. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I know I should not reply to your comment as it will not help me getting ublocked. However, trying to understand why someone dislikes me as much as you do is more important to me than being unblocked. You do not know me and, based on my edits, you have concluded that I am siding with forces you despise the most. Well, you are wrong. I am much more complex than that. I should have chosen Againstmyself as a username instead of Againstdisinformation. I can assure you that it's sometimes harder being Againstdisinformation than being John Malkovich (forgive the humour, I have a hard time suppressing my childish nature). We have very often been at odds, but don't you believe that trying to understand each other's point of view would be more rewarding for both of us than engaging in a feud? Who knows, you might learn something from me and I might learn something from you. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever. You did not really explain how exactly you are going to improve your editing (actually, quite the opposite - based on your statement above), so I would expect you to be quickly blocked again. If admins want to deal with issues caused by your editing in the future, this is their business. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I think, and I think and User:Vanjagenije will agree with this, is that an AN discussion is the best way. My very best, I prefer AN over ANI since a. I don't want this to be a dramafest and so, for instance, I would like for this not to be about birthdays in any kind of detail, and b. normally this would be decided on by an admin, not by the community, and I think that the middle way of the admin community is appropriate. So, AD, if you like we can post your unblock request on AN or, Vanjagenije, you can unblock AD with the condition that they be allowed to post only on AN for this particular request. I'm going to stay out of this as much as I can because I feel a bit torn: I have my doubts about AD's POV (but I think there's some POV on the other side as well), and I agreed with them on the birthday issue. In other words, I find it a bit difficult to be neutral but, more than that, I'm not sure that AD's opponents will consider me to be totally neutral. Vanjagenjie, I leave it up to you. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted the request at WP:AN. I don't think I need permission from Againstdisinformation to do that.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since, along with Salvidrim!, you considered my appeal worthy of consideration; I would like to make a request. Could you not temporarily unblock me so as to enable me to post on AN, as suggested by Drmies? Otherwise I don't see how I can defend myself, while my opponents, who are essentially people who have strong feelings about the situation in Eastern Europe and have been irritated by my edits on this topic, will be free to cast me in a bad light as they please and, whatever they claim, I will be unable to challenge it. If you grant my request, I solemnly promise to post on no other page than AN (and my talk page). Thank you in advance for your understanding. Againstdisinformation (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Drmies suggested that I should post your unblock request at WP:AN or unblock you temporarily so to allow you to post it yourself. Sinve I already posted your request at AN, I don;t think it is necessary to unblock you.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK,, I thought that when Drmies said "they be allowed to post only on AN for this particular request" they meant broadly post only concerning my appeal, but after re-reading carefully the sentence I think you are right. However, I don't see any reason to unblock me just for that particular action and not allowing me to defend myself on AN. Anyway, this is for you to decide and, in any case, you have already done much for me just by heeding my appeal. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure that Againstdisinformation can post any statements for WP:AN here, and they will be copied to WP:AN by other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you be prepared to do it, copying what I write word for word? Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, absolutely - if I will be around (I am actually busy). Otherwise, someone else will be able to do it, I am sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ,if your stated willingness to help me were sincere, it would come as a surprise and would really touch me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - an opinion by a neutral 3rd party: this user is worth being given another chance. Dorpater (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , with all due respect, how can you say, as you did on AN, that my edits are at the same time POV-driven and right? And, yes, we were on the same side concerning the "Putin's admirer" tag attached to Farage and this doesn't make either of us an admirer of Nigel Farage. This being said, I appreciate the fact that you try to understand me instead of ostracizing me right away as some do. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I thank you for your support. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're doing it again, AD. Honestly, you're your own worst enemy. Drmies described you well somewhere (although I don't have the inclination to search for the diff)... the gist of it being that you're probably someone he (and some others, including myself) would probably like IRL. That is not the equivalent of being someone who can work in a collegial manner for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. Arguing semantics where it's inappropriate, TLDR comments, and the fact that you exclusively edit articles that are always fraught with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:GEVAL issues is a problem. P.S. Do you even have any idea of who Dorpater is? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly have I done again? I just told Drmies that my edits can't be at the same time POV fraught and right. Apart from that, Drmies is one of the contributors whom I respect the most. Why do you think I cannot work collegially? I have always asked to discuss about content, not the editor. Since you say that you woud probably like me IRL, I can tell you that I like you online, even though you (or perhaps because) you continually oppose me but, unlike some others, without malice. However, you never address content. Please, tell me precisely what I "did again". No, I have no idea who Dorpater is, but he just gave me his hand at a time when I am feeling very lonely and the least I could do was to thank him. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I can sympathise with your feeling that you're an island at the moment. In a nutshell, what concerns me is that you're repeating your "I'm being harassed and persecuted" patterns again in taking Wishing you all the best's interaction as being in bad faith. You've expressed such concerns repeatedly (just as an example, here) where it is not unusual for regular editors to be wary of changes and additions to article content by a new contributor. Such concerns are neither harassment nor extraordinary. It appears that you're still stuck in the same rut. That isn't going to be rectified by being unblocked and leaping straight back into the same contentious and highly politicised articles you've shown explicit interest in. Unless you gain experience and familiarise yourself with the machinations of Wikipedia as a project you're going to find yourself in the same predicaments. Please remember that Wikipedia is not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... and that thinking that you know what other editor's positions actually means that you know what their positions are. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I fail to see where I am "repeating" that "I'm being harassed and persecuted". While it is true that some editors will never fogive me for having challenged the unproven association between Putin and a murder or the "Putin admirer" tag attached to Farage, I have always been fully aware that I woud not attract sympathy by such actions. However, I do not consider Wikipedia as a social network. My purpose is not to right any wrong, it is rather to help maintain a high standard of accuracy in Wikipedia. If I have edited "highly politicised articles", it is precisely because they were politicized which, in my opinion, is a shame. I have tried to make them more neutral. How can I be so wrong when, in spite of the animosity I have attracted, I have been vindicated in the end. Where are now the innuendos about Putin (a living person) or Farage (another living person)? Why,now that I am only speaking from the grave, do the editors who so fiercely advocated the inclusion of such innuendos not reinstate them? I agree that I made a mistake by keeping the images Toddy1 posted on my talk page. But you were a frequent visitor and, unlike me, you are very knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies. Why did you never tell me that it was a serious violation for which I could be indefinitely blocked? You think that I should not be unblocked. Okay,if you can show me that I have harmed Wikipedia in any way, I will withdraw my appeal myself. Short of this, please do not tell me that I should remain blocked for having edited articles on sensitive topics. You have amply edited them yourself. If I were to be unblocked, I hope that we could find a way to have a collaborative interaction. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Againstdisinformation, I've been a bit busy today so I haven't looked yet to see how your case at AN is going. Yes, I think your edits are POV driven, but many of us frequently suffer from some POV in some areas. It's the amount of POV, and whether that POV allows us to edit neutrally, that matters. Anyway, yes, the odd thing is that I think those edits of yours were POV-driven but correct, in those two cases--the birthday and the namedropping/Putin fan incidents. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're not reading what I've written, AD (and not for the first time). My example had nothing to do with the RT article or the Anna Politkovskaya article. It's an indication of how you interact and the level of hysteria with which you interact. Frankly, anyone who says they're not here to right great wrongs and talks about how they've been consistently 'vindicated' in the same breath is an editor with issues and needs to be far more self-analytical than you've ever proven yourself to be. As for my not pointing out that you shouldn't have left the images without their full context while eradicating everything else on their own talk page: take a look at the history of your talk page and tell me that, in all honesty, I hadn't expended an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to explain policy to you from the word go. It had no impact whatsoever. I'd even told you that I was no longer going to interact with you because you are so high maintenance. You were most certainly around long enough to be aware of BLPVIO (that was what you were going on and on about with both the Farage and Politkovskaya examples), yet you were unable to put 2 plus 2 together for your own talk page, and even misrepresented Toddy1's original comment including what kind of photos we use for BLP articles as WP:NPOV. Okay, Toddy1's example was a little on the tasteless side, but I cannot believe that you're foolish enough not to be able to join the dots and be aware of the fact that you'd misrepresented Toddy1 by removing the discussion surrounding your representation of George Soros. In and of itself, it was not the definitive reason for which you were blocked, just the icing on the cake of a history of disruptive editing.


 * On the question of remaining blocked: where did I say that? All I've said is that I think it's a bad idea for you to be unblocked and given free reign to go back to editing what are essentially current affairs articles, as is your exclusive wont. If it is considered that you should be unblocked, I simply would want to see that the unblock reflects well thought out recommendations as to conditions you would need to fulfil. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , the images were placed on my talk page by another editor who made a comment about them being funny. My only tort was not to remove them, I have added nothing myself. I had no idea it was so serious and, in fact, no one ever told me anything about them. Could you please report on AN that I did not place them myself? Also, don't you think the person who placed them on my talk page bears the main responsibility for the BLP violaton? I thank you in advance. Againstdisinformation (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in a bit of hot water right now with some editors who hold me responsible for some inappropriate remarks placed on my talk page, remarks I didn't remove--it's perfectly possible that I didn't see them until months later, when they were pointed out to me. I suppose that sure, I carry some responsibility--should have noticed, should have said something. [...] OK, I see now that added it--but you commented, "Thank you for the two faces of Victoria Nuland, It's really funny". So you knew and agreed. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , It's true that I found the images funny, I have never tried to deny it. However, JzG stated on my talk page: "I find the images droll, but have removed them because apart from anything else the hair colour suggests they are taken a long time apart." Should he be indefinitely blocked because he found the images droll? I found that funny, yes. I didn't delete them because it would have been impolite towards . Then I simply forgot them, they became part of the background, like a bad painting in your home that you don't even notice anymore. If JzG had asked me to remove them I would have done so. I reinstated them on the spur of the moment because I was irritated to be treated harshly for having called Trappedinburnley a crackpot after he had accused me of working for the Russian government, while no one found that objectionable. Does this deserve capital punishment? The irony is that I have strictly no interest in Victoria Nuland. I would hate to get her into trouble, but I think should feel morally compelled to explain that I never asked for these images. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Forgive the slight touch of humour, but you have all my sympathy for finding yourself in trouble for things placed on your talk page by others. It looks like a convenient way of getting rid of an editor one doesn't like (just kidding). Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , I will try to answer your points as well as I can. You point to the "level of hysteria with which (you) interact" because I asked Lute88 to withdraw his insinuation that I was a "Putin troll" (Why do I smell this? - http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/ --Lute88 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)), while finding nothing objectionable in his remark. Could you please explain? You spoke above of my "compulsive pinging", when in fact I did that in order to be less intrusive when I had a question for you, instead of opening a section on your talk page. You accuse me of assuming bad faith on the part of My very best wishes just because I said that I would be surprised (due to his long standing hostility towards me) but touched if he were to help me. How can this be construed as attributing bad faith? Please explain. In fact He said he might be too buy to post my comments on AN, but he found the time to make less than fair allegations against me there. You say that I misrepresent Toddy1 while omitting our previous conversation about Soros. I didn't mention Soros because I fail to see how it is relevant. You say that I misrepresent, but the way you allude to my speaking with Toddy1 about Soros is misleading. By reading your comment someone could conclude that I wanted to make jokes about Soros (like about Nuland). In fact, you are well aware that I objected to the inclusion of a comment by him in an article where it did not belong. All the more so that you removed the whole comment yourself. You certainly remember that I thanked you for it and said that I would never have dared to do it myself. As for my incessant complaining that "I'm being harassed and persecuted", you must have made a bad dream. Otherwise, have the kindness to provide a diff. You constantly describe my edits as disruptive but all your criticism is focused on my behaviour. You once stated on a talk page (I can't remember which) that I crave attention and that my edits should simply be reverted without entering into discussions with me. Now, you are right. I am less than perfect and I know my weaknesses all too well, but I am not looking for the splinter in my brother's eye. I hope that despite all the defects that you perceive in my nature, you will be able to come up with at least one positive trait. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you made the following two posts about me on AN:

"I checked this link and was surprised by the title (Wikipedia Mouthpiece of the State Department) that was chosen by Againstdisinformation to start the thread. Why State Department? He did not explain. Is it somehow related to the worker from the State Department used as a target for his jokes, which has been the reason for his block by JzG? My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)"

"If you are going to unblock, Againstdisinformation should know if starting a discussion like that one ("a mouthpiece") would be regarded as disruption and result in block. That is what he usually does. This may not be outright forbidden by policies, but result in enormous waste of time for others. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)"

Since you kindly offered to place my posts on AN for me, since you don't seem to be so busy as to be unable to post and since I would like to show that, contrary to her misgivings, I don't assume bad faith on your part, could you be so kind as to post my reply? Here it is:

" apparently believes that I am somehow intent on making fun of Victoria Nuland. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my explanation: first, the images were placed on my talk page not by me, but by . I am certain that she has nothing against Victoria Nuland but I suppose that, after a conversation we had on the subject, she wanted to illustrate the difference betweeen the way facts are presented and what they really are. I said it was funny and I did not remove the images because I thought it would be impolite towards . After that I never even thought of the images again. Second, as mentioned by, I opened a section on RT (TV network) talk page entitled "Wikipedia mouthpiece of the State Department" because there is a section entitled "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" in the article and I wanted to attract attention on what seems to me to be inappropriate. Apparently, agrees with me, since he thinks that starting a section with "mouthpiece" deserves blocking. My concern was about the standards that should be maintained in an encyclopedia, which in my opinion should be higher than those of the press. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Victoria Nuland." Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And this is what you will get if you unblock this editor. Thousands of words, all nicely placed, walls of saccharin sweet text (interlaced with oh-so-subtle insults) which blames everyone in the world except them for their problems. A complete waste of time to try to discuss anything.  Won't change their mind, and can't change the subject. I have stayed far away from this user since our last encounter, and I was not sorry to see the block placed. The discussion as to whether their POV is "right" or "wrong" is amusing in itself.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Against. I did not tell that the section with "mouthpiece" deserves blocking. I said "if". I think this thread was a clear example of WP:SOAP, WP:DE, and ... something else, but I could be wrong. This is something that admins should decide and possibly explain to you as a condition of your unblock. Unfortunately, this whole discussion above looks to me as a circus, so I can't help here and would rather step away and let admins deal with it. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Againstdisinformation, this post of mine makes this talk page, this one unblock request, go over 38,000 bytes, I believe. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , why did you offer to post my comments on AN if you were not going do it?
 * In this message you blame another contributor of BLP violation. I do not want to be involved in this at all, especially since I have seen personal information posted by this contributor on-wiki about herself. Sorry. If however, Drmies thinks it would be appropriate to copy-paste your message to AN, that will be her responsibility. This is my last comment about it, and I am going to stay away from you as far as possible. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are right. From now on I will only reply to administrators if they ask me for clarification, I am getting tired of this too. Scrapiron, who hates me because I maintain that waterboarding is torture and not "an exercice that we practise on our own troops", and my other opponents, who are no doubt uninvolved and have only Wikipedia's interest in mind, can say whatever they like, I won't reply. If they want me to remain blocked, so be it. Foremost among the people I admire are Thomas Paine and Noam Chomsky, so that Wikipedia may well not be a place for me. I just want you to know that, even though I don't think you understand my motivations (which are the exact opposite of trying to push a POV), I have greatly appreciated your intellectual honesty and your sense of humour. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Conditional unblock
After discussing the issue with other admins and examining your edits, I decided to offer you conditional unblock. That does not mean that the reasons for which you were blocked are wrong. Those issues are real and important. So, you should not think of unblock as a proof of your innocence. On the contrary, I agree with other editors that your behavior was disruptive. Yet, I believe that you deserve a second chance to try to edit without those issues. If I (or any other admin) see that you continue with your old behavior, you will be blocked again. So, you'll have to accept those conditions in order to be unblocked: Please, state your acceptance or refusal of those conditions below.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You will refrain from any kind of WP:BLP violation;
 * You will treat other people with respect. You will not accuse anybody of being a "mouthpiece of the White House" or anything similar. You will only comment on content, not on other editors;
 * If somebody else accuses use of any wrongdoing, you will not answer until you calm down and relax. If the accusation is baseless, you will not answer at all;
 * You will not participate in any wp:dramaboards unless you are explicitly invited to participate;
 * Your posts on talk pages and noticeboards will be short and concise, without walls of text. You don't need to reply on every single post in the discussion you participate in;
 * Within 24 hours of being unblocked, you will request your username to be changed into something more neutral that will not irritate other editors;
 * If you brake any of those conditions according to admin's opinion, you'll be blocked again without warning.
 * , I would like, first of all, to thank you for offering to unblock me in spite of the resolute opposition of my opponents. It is not an easy task to be an administrator and not always rewarding, I dare say. This is not flattery, but sincere gratitude for reaching out to me. Of course I accept your conditions, but I would like to reply point by point.

Thank you for your patience and forgive me for the "wall of text". I hope that you will grant my request and understand that if I were to sacrifice my human dignity I could not be of any help to Wikipedia, nor to anyone else. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will have no difficulty in avoiding WP:BLP violation. I never intended to make the one for which I have been indeffed (and for which I accept full responsibility). I have been negligent, but the violation was the result of someone else's actions.
 * I have always treated others with respect and will continue to do so. Not for fear of being blocked, but rather because I know that behind a username, there is always a human being. I will never accuse anyone of being a "mouthpiece of the White House", and I never did that. You must be referring to «Wikipedia mouthpiece of the State Department". This was the title I gave to a section of RT (TV network)'s talk page, precisely to attract attention on the inappropriateness of the section title "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" in the article. I am happy to see that you agree. Besides, "comment on content, not on other editor" is what I have constantly asked my opponents to do, as is easy to check.
 * I will not answer any accusation or insult, as I did when I have been accused twice of being paid by the Russian Government. If I did so, it is because my honor was at stake. I can see now that it only made things worse. However, I can't accept a situation where my opponents are allowed to level any unsubstantiated accusation against me as they please and I should accept it meekly. Therefore, if you agree, and if anything of the sort ever happens again, I will not reply, but I will refer the matter directly to you.
 * As concerns wp:dramaboards, I don't see what you are alluding to. Unless you are referring to the case brought against me on ANI by user Reaganomics, which he lost, and that almost boomeranged. If there is something else, please refresh my mind. In any case, it is not the kind of place I like.
 * As for not being concise, you are right, I am verbose. However, this stems from my desire to explain my position to other editors in a nuanced way, which I think is the respectful thing to do. I like the exchange of ideas, not confrontation. Sometimes, some editors have replied to my comments tersely with something like: I am right, you are wrong, and that's it. It did not strike me as particularly courteous. I will do my best to be more concise (judging by the length of this reply, you may already have chosen not to unblock me, but sincerely, I will try).
 * Finally, I have stated myself on many occasions that I wanted to change my username, even though no Wikipedia policy forces me to do so. I chose it to make explicit my purpose in editing: attracting the community's attention on biased edits, like insinuating that a murder which happened on Putin's birthday was somehow a present to him, a worse WP:BLP violation than the images I received, in my opinion. Changing my username now, under duress with a deadline of 24 hours, on the request of Xx236, who has been uncivil to me on multiple occasions, would be a public humiliation that he would no doubt enjoy. Could you kindly reconsider this condition, especially with the ultimatum attached to it, and let me do it after a while, when the dust has settled down. I am not a villain; I believe I am a decent person. Though I am now an elderly person, I am still active in research and, at the risk of looking presumptuous; I would say that I enjoy a certain respect in my field.
 * I expected simple "yes" or "no". You again posted a long message in which you didn't say anything new. Can't you see that? That is exactly the problem that led to your block. I read about damn birthday thing at least 10 times, and you repeat it again. In Wikipedia, everything is archived, you don't have to repeat the same story again and again, that is disruptive. I need you to understand that such behavior is unacceptable. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant, we are talking about your approach, not about your ideas. Regarding your username, I personally have no problem with it, but another admin at WP:ANI who supports unblocking asked for a username change to be added as a condition, and I agreed with her. I honestly believe that you are not "a villain", but you have irritated so many people here, so that I also have to think about them, not just about you. Simply talking, this is a "take it or leave it" situation. You can accept (all) my conditions or not. If you don't accept, you may post another unblock request, but I don't think any other admin will be so generous. I'm expecting a short answer without mentioning Putin and/or Nuland.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't see the purpose of ordering me to do what I freely said myself I would do in my UTRS appeal: "JzG also mentioned that my username was objectionable, and I agree to change it as soon as I am unblocked". Something I had wanted to do long before I was blocked, as is easy to check. OK, I will change my username instantly (I had even thought of a new one). But I do it because this is what I wanted to do in the first place. It should not be interpreted as a sign of kowtowing to the demands of Xx236, who has tried to get me out of wikipedia since te beginning. I couldn't care less about their diktat. They have absolutely no right to demand this from me. This is an exorbitant demand, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I do it for you, not for them, because you have extended a helping hand to me and I feel grateful.
 * User:Vanjagenije, I think this is a "yes". AD, good luck in your future career here. Feel free to drop by and say hi; you know I'm always ready for an amusing interlude. Oh, gotta go, before I push this talk page over 49k. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, could you tell me where I can request a change of username. I have a 24 hours deadline and I'll be working all day, so that I must hurry (and Xx236 laughing all the way to...;). In advance, thank you for the tip. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should try Global user account rename request--seems easy enough. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be precise, --Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have posted the request for a new username. It is now "pending approval" and I don't know if they will do it in less than 24 hours. Againstdisinformation (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please change your name
I find your name unneutral, you suggest that your opponents disinform. I have already asked you once and haven't obtained a serious answer. Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , the message you left on my talk page read: "Your name User:Againstdisinformation suggests that you are against any disinformation. It's apparently not the case, so you use this name to promote your agenda." This did not strike me as being particularly friendly, so that I did not feel obliged to comply. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please comment your unfriendly name.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We generally tolerate every username that is not contrary to the relevant policies. Can you show how this particular username violates policies? By the way, your argument that this username "suggests that his opponents disinform" is a clear logical fallacy. If I, for example, say that I am "against terrorists" (which is true), does it mean that all my opponents are terrorists?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I must agree with XX236. Yes, the username by itself does not mean a lot. However, when user comes to an article talk page and tells: "This piece of asinine propaganda seems to have been borrowed right from an English tabloid. Can an encyclopedia stoop so low without suffering any damage to its credibility? How would something like "CNN, mouthpiece of the White House" sound? Moronic!", but this is not true at all, what he does IS an insult to other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Using your terrorism example, an analogy would be as follows: "This piece of terrorism propaganda seems to have been borrowed right from ..." and so on. User:Againstterrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be oversensible, but after Pravda without pravda (The Truth), Izvestya without izvestya (The News) and the World Peace Council controlled from Moscow I read and reread names.Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what you are alluding to, but somehow I feel that you are trying to make amends for the humiliation I have had to endure, due in part to your allusions about my username. For this, I thank you. It shows the better part in you. Now, sincerely, whatever you may think about Russia, do you really think that, if I was paid by the Kremlin to edit, I would be so stupid as to choose such a username? It makes no sense for a secret agent to advertise his intent. I chose that name to make my purpose crystal clear: rid Wikipedia of obvious bias, like the linkage between Putin' birthday and the motives behind a murder. I thought anyone in his right mind woud understand this straightaway. Apparently I was wrong. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Rename declined
I've declined your username change request to be renamed to "Castigat ridendo mores" because, after reading your talk page discussion, Castigat ridendo mores may not be an appropriate username to be renamed to because Castigat ridendo mores means "one corrects customs by laughing at them". Normally this username would be fine; however, based on how heated the discussion got above, and how your current, normally acceptable username was viewed as disruptive, I do not think your new username will be accepted as well. Please, pick a new name. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 12:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I understand your concern. However, as you stated yourself, my current username is "normally acceptable" and the proposed new one "would be fine", if it were not for some editors who might not accept it. Could you be so kind as to cite the precise Wikipedia guideline which gives these editors such exorbitant rights? This is a very serious matter, of foremost importance for Wikipedia. Should it be governed by fair and precise rules, which apply uniformly to everyone, or should it be left to the whim of groups of editors, according to their sway?

P.S. The translation of "Castigat ridendo mores" found in Wikipedia is poor, but, admittedly, this phrase is difficult to translate, Latin being much more expressive than English. I would rather render it as "Correcting mores (perfectly good English word) through humour" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Againstdisinformation, It is me who ordered you to change your username if you want to be unblocked. Not Xx236, not anybody else, but me. And yes, Wikipedia does have policies that allow administrators to impose unblocking conditions. So, this request is perfectly policy-based. Stop accusing other editors, and do what you've agreed to do. You agreed to request your username to be changed into "something more neutral that will not irritate others". The new username that you requested is obviously not such, so please make new request.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , please don't get upset. I did what I "agreed to do", I asked for a new username. I am not "accusing other editors" and never mentioned Xx236. However, you told him yourself that "We generally tolerate every username that is not contrary to the relevant policies. Can you show how this particular username violates policies? By the way, your argument that this username "suggests that his opponents disinform" is a clear logical fallacy." So where is the logic? The Latin phrase "Castigat ridendo mores" describes the function of comedy, how can it be construed as offensive? I was in fact thinking of Molière when I made my choice, not of Xx236. If this is unacceptable, please, at least extend the deadline in order to give me enough time to think of something else. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way,. I tried "Ecce homo" before "Castigat ridendo mores", but it was taken. Sorry to bother you again. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Againstdisinformation, you were told you had to take or leave the unblock conditions and now you are arguing about their interpretation. I imagine that this does nothing to improve Vanjagenije's faith that you will abide by your other restrictions. It seems like pride might be a part of this, and it is humbling to have to agree to conditions set out by another party. But the choice is very clear and you can acquiesce and edit according to restrictions or end your editing career prematurely. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how AgainstDisinformation is arguing about the interpretation of the unblock conditions, if the conditions said they had to change their username, and they tried to, but the new username was also not accepted. I think that is an incorrect characterization of the behavior here. I think AgainstDisinformation tried to comply with the condition of changing their username, but didn't change it to "Flowers and Bunnies" or something, but instead something making another sort of statement of principles. I personally can understand this on an emotional level, and i just wanted to say that it's not true that they are arguing about the interpretation of the block conditions. This feels a bit controlling and i recognize that AgainstDisinformation appears to be the sort of person who rankles at the feeling of being controlled. I can understand this, as it is the principle of human behavior called counterwill, which actually has a very important social function of preventing undue hierarchy. SageRad (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am not arguing anything, I proposed a new username that was considered "fine" but just not acceptable for me. I don't understand why. I was referring to Molière (admittedly, a controversial character, according to the seventeenth century catholic church". I asked for an extension of the deadline, but since it is not forthcoming I requested another username which reflects my immense admiration for ancient Greece. Let's hope this will offend no one. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your support. I was starting to think that the best move I could do was to forget Wikipedia altogether, but you restored my courage. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I took half an hour and looked through some of your edits, and can resonate with your mode of working. I see that you're doing generally good work here, and i think you're valuable at Wikipedia. I seem to have a similar nature in that i do not like to feel coerced. I have a natural resistance to it, and then others often use that to portray me as "bad" because i'm not automatically obedient, or maybe better phrased as submissive. I have a very hard time with others ordering me to "drop the stick" because it just doesn't feel like a good human interaction, and some people seem to then use that failure to obey as a signal that i am a person to be eliminated from Wikipedia altogether, or from a topic area. It's a dynamic i've begun to understand in the last year of my editing around topics where there seems to be strong interests and controversy. I love to edit Wikipedia in areas of relative obscurity, and work in a cooperative way with other editors. I wish that it could be that smooth even in areas where there is contention. I think that if we really stick to rules of good sourcing, and good dialogue, that it would be possible to work even with people who hold vastly different worldviews. In fact, it would be stronger for the diversity of worldviews. However, this requires some basics of good interactions together, and that people use dialogue rather than control as a go-to mode. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @SageRad. I agree. Againstdisinformation is not arguing about their unblocking conditions. He is laughing at them (Castigat ridendo mores - "one corrects customs by laughing at them"). My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe that's a good thing. Laughter has a lot of power. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , Againstdisinformation is no more, so leave him in peace. Your comments might be regarded as a personal attack. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I would like to thank you again for unblocking me. Now that I have satisfied all the conditions stipulated for my unblock, will My very best wishes be allowed to taunt me on my talk page indefinitely, while I am forbidden to answer? Will he not get the slightest warning that this might be inappropriate? I have never attacked him. He simply hates me because I drew the attention of administrators on the birthday thing. Since you have stated as a condition for my unblock that I should not reply to accusations made against me, I think this gives you a duty to protect me and not let things escalate. Thank you in advance. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have right to ignore My very best wishes and anybody else who "hates" you. Sooner you start exercising that right, better for you.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , could you not just gently tell him to stop? He still continues spreading false accusations against me on AN, even though the case has been settled. This is very hard to swallow, try to put yourself in my shoes. If I am to contribute positively to Wikipedia, I need peace and quiet. If this is allowed to continue, I will not reply but I will cease permanently to edit Wikipedia Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Violation of condition #2 of the unblock is detected, in less than 24h after the unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , there is no violation, I am only asking to be left alone now that I have satisfied all conditions. Do you think it is appropriate for My very best wishes to bait me immediately after my unblock? I am just asking to be left alone and judged by my new edits only. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, you ave made exactly zero edits in the article space. You were clearly unblock for editing in the aericles, and not for continuing the same behaviour you were blocked for. Just drop the stick and start doing something useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I hope you won't consider that answering you is yet another violation. For me, it is just politeness and I hope I have always been polite. This is why I always answer someone who addresses me. If I have made "zero edits in the article space", it is because I have not yet had the time. I have been unblocked only very recently. But, by all means, follow my editing in the future. I have no wish to confront anyone, therefore I hope that others will refrain from confronting me without being provoked. Does this satisfy you? Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, if you feel an editor is unnecessarily provoking you, please ask them to not post on your talk page. It's better to disengage from the discussion than find yourself pulled into disputes. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , what you say makes perfectly good sense. However, such an injunction on my part might now be considered a breach of my unblocking conditions, so that I would definitely prefer they were asked by an administrator not to provoke me. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, congratulations on the unblock. Now it is hard for me to type your name so i have to copy and paste it. But i like what it means. Anyway, i wish to offer my friendly advice from experience, that it is always best to refrain from imputing motives to people, as long as possible, unless it really becomes impossible to deny and then to ask them. I don't think that user Vanjagenije has a duty to protect you or to respond to accusations against you, although that part of the conditions is odd to me, where it says "If somebody else accuses use of any wrongdoing, you will not answer until you calm down and relax. If the accusation is baseless, you will not answer at all." Of course it's always good to calm down if you're upset, otherwise you'll use words you may regret later, and the more peaceful and calm of a response, the stronger you will be in the dialogue. However, if someone makes a baseless claim against you, i don't see why you couldn't just say "that's baseless" but the conditions do say that. If you need an advocate to speak because of this rule, give me a tap on the shoulder. If i agree that it's baseless i'll say that i think so, otherwise i'll see if i can figure out how to unravel whatever Gordian Knot has been tangled. Hopefully we all look out for each other, and always try to de-escalate and figure out the real roots of any conflict, and treat each other as humans with the most respect we can manage. SageRad (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't know you, but I feel I have a new friend now, at least intellectually. I still believe Wikipedia can be a wonderful tool for facilitating access to knowledge. However, its reliability is in jeopardy. The main danger comes from the current affairs articles (my opinion is that they should be removed altogether, but I know this will never happen). At least, we should try to prevent it from becoming a mere press summary. Can one imagine a learned publication citing the Daily Telegraph (for instance) as a source? Generally, people answer that I don't undertand anything about how Wikipedia works. That may well be, but I sometimes feel uneasy reading Wikipedia in a way that I would never feel reading Nature, for example. I do hope that we will be able to work together in the future. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * go and live in Putin's Russia if you really are sincere. you can read in peace then presumably, and know you are getting the truth. ffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.16.146 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate the great courage you are displaying by insulting me anonymously. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , how am I to tell people who abuse me anonymously on my talk page to stop to do so? Also, forgive my impudence, but how do you explain that I have been put to shame for receiving inappropriate images on my talk page without ever asking for them, while the editor who placed them there was never asked even a single question? Someone suggested on AN that it might have been a wilful trap. I did not believe it at first but, considering that that editor never confirmed that I had not asked for the images, I am beginning to wonder and I am determined to know the truth Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you say, Editor X, please do not post on my talk page unless it is a required notification. Then, if they don't abide by your wishes and they post again, you delete their comments. You can delete most comments on your talk page (or archive them) except for block notices or block appeals. Liz  Read! Talk!</b> 23:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , why do you give no answer to my second question about the images, which is obviously much more important?
 * If you are talking about this edit, I would just delete the images. I don't see what is complicated about this or what more I can say than what I've already said. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are dodging my question. The problem is not what I should have done with the images, rather it is: Why was I indefinitely blocked for having received the images without asking for them, while the editor who placed them on my talk page without my consent was never even asked a single question? I think this is a legitimate question, that deserves an answer. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this comment and left a note on the IP user's talk page. It would be useful to know exactly what are your limitations of the block and how long those special limitations are to last. It seems hobbling to have specific conditions like that, especially if they are indefinite. Maybe it's the full moon night calling out the werewolves. SageRad (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AD, if I can still call you that (I can't read Greek, sorry), congratulations on getting unblocked. I'll have another look at the image thing, if you wish., it seems you are no longer welcome here. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I have always considered you a wise and sincere person, with a very subtle and pleasant sense of humour. No need to say that I don't think that of everyone with whom I have had to interact here. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, they broke the mold after I got made. It is not a coincidence that my mother's birthday is only eight days removed from Putin's! Well, eight days and a couple of years, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am the user formerly known as "Againstdisinformation". You are most certainly aware of my indefinite block and of the debate to which it gave rise. We hold opposite views on many issues and our interaction have not always been serene. However, I have observed that you didn't joint the pack for the killing. As a result, my respect for you has risen dramatically. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone deserves a second chance. Also, I got a chuckle out of your first requested re-name. Behave.  Volunteer Marek   22:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Γνῶθι σεαυτόν. If you do not want me to comment on your talk page, please tell this to me explicitly, rather than through someone else. In any event, you are very much welcome on my talk page. Here is AN thread about your unblock. I believe that none of my comments during this AN discussion were inappropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting name
I always enjoy seeing greek in names. I learned greek auditing seminary classes long ago. But I wonder if the dative or genitive forms would have been better which would have translated as "to know yourself' or "knowing of yourself". Also the perfect tense would have been interesting, having known yourself, presently knowing yourself, and continuing to know yourself. AlbinoFerret  04:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I agree that your suggestions have their merit, but I really intended it as a "sybiline" statement of principle. My first choice was "Castigat ridendo mores", but it was rejected. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They were just suggestions and observations, Still interesting choice in a positive way. AlbinoFerret  17:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,.

Well meant suggestion
Really, jumping right back into controversial topics, immediately after you got unblocked, is probably NOT a good idea.  Volunteer Marek  01:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , contrary to what some contributors have suggested, my edits have only one purpose: ridding Wikipedia of clear distortions of facts. I may be wrong, but I am sincere. I firmly believe that I have the right to express my views on talk pages. I always do it politely and, I hope, in a reasoned way. If I am blocked for doing this, the shame will not be on me. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, everyone, except outright vandals, believes sincerely that their edits are made with the purpose of "ridding Wikipedia of clear distortions of facts". But the editors who insist on this being their purpose are usually the ones who are unable to compromise, to see the shortcomings in their own approach and also usually the ones who take a very disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. They tend to be "true believers" who think that anyone who disagrees with them must be intentionally trying to "distort facts". They tend to be the ones who are unable to cooperatively work with others. They tend to be the ones who repeatedly violate Wikipedia policies because they think they're on some noble quest for WP:TRUTH. They tend to be the ones who get banned, because whatever their intention the net result of their actions is to lower, not increase, the quality of the encyclopedia.  Volunteer Marek   01:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am telling you this because I have been accused twice of being a Russian agent. Don't take offence, but I don't recognise myself in the portrait you are painting of me as a Quixotic crackpot suffering from persecutory delusion. If you find something wrong in either my edits or my comments, please have the kindness to explain to me precisely what it is. If indeed I am wrong, I will instantly apologise. My main area of interest is Science. Believe me there are heated debates in that domain too, but I have never heard of anyone being threatened of not being allowed to speak at a conference on the grounds that he challenges the views of his peers, much less being called a fool or a knave. So please, once again, let us discuss content, not intent, in a friendly and academic way. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. It's good to see that you've leapt straight back into the same articles with evidence of your collegial attitude. Snarky commentary on articles already recently picked up on as being in need of content overhaul earns you a big tick of approval. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have taken note of your comment on Toddy1's talk page, where you vaunt the "collegial and civil relationships" of two editors. All this is fine and dandy but, since you find my commentaries "snarky", I would like to have your opinion on the one just below yours on Toddy1's talk page. There, a comparison is (not so) subtly drawn between me and Tartuffe by an editor who spared no effort to keep me blocked. Would you say it's collegial, or civil, or both? P.S. If you have not already done so, you must absolutely read Tartuffe (in French, please). After that, read Psychological projection. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are aware, I was discussing how editors who are HERE, in general, make their best efforts to interact civilly, and that you are constantly misjudging relationships between who editors have locked horns over issues many times in the past, reading them superficially as being 'friends'. In fact none of us have interacted with each other over the years as we have exclusively with you. You're working on a false premise, and are still demonstrating that you're high maintenance and very, very demanding. The fact that you're being reminded subtly that you've just gone straight back to the same articles, WP:REHASHing the same territory, and inevitably are going to run into the same editors who are going to have difficulties with assuming good faith is something you're going to have to work around. I'm trying to stay clear in as much as is possible. If you'll excuse me, today's editing for me consists of really boring grunt work that needs to be addressed. Please try to stay on the point on article discussion pages. Yes, there are serious problems with many articles... but why is your focus expressly on articles surrounding the RF with a view to being as derisive as possible regarding any countries in conflict with the RF? Open up your editing areas. There's much to be done on Wikipedia right across the board. Who knows, you might even find that it will shift your opinion as to how 'arcane' policies and guidelines are when you start to understand how and why they evolved. I really think you'd benefit from putting the complexities of Wikipedia to the test. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you have not answered my question about the comment comparing me to Tartuffe. You claim that I am "as derisive as possible regarding any countries in conflict with the RF". How did you come to this conclusion? I can't remember ever having been derisive towards any country, whether it be in conflict with the RF or not. My derision, if any, is always directed at the fallacies. If I give the impression to defend the FR, it is because there is an ongoing campaign against it in the Western media. This campaign reflects the neocon doxa prevailing inside the beltway, and the media are not above misleading the public on matters of crucial importance. They are the ones who propagate false stories, one after the other. I don't want to remind you about the Iraq war, but one outcome has been to establish that the mainstream media are (alas) not reliable. Can one say with a straight face that Mr. Putin is a dictator, the new Hitler, that he has no soul and link him to murders through his birthday? This is ludicrous and can't be tolerated in any encyclopaedia. Let them have this in the English tabloids, for God's sake. As for my alleged pro-Russian leanings, I have never even seen a Russian in my life. My father had a French Father and a German mother and my mother had a Greek father and a Jewish mother who can trace her ancestry back to the expulsion of the Jews by Isabella I of Castile. I was myself born in Africa and my aunt in Argentina. Why on earth would I have any interest in defending the RF. I confess that I learned the language, but this stemmed out of a desire to read Chekhov in the original. This happened when I was living in India in the eighties. So, whose premise is false? Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither your back story nor mine matter a jot when it comes to editing. You still fail to understand WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Truly, I have no more to say on any subject to you unless it's on an article's talk page. You've been given advice as to letting go, and I don't want to mull over what you fail to comprehend any longer. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS refers to "Tendentious editing" "a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole". You have accused me of this from our first encounter, albeit without ever giving a single concrete example. If you can find one, I will apologise. Now, I really think that you should read Molière if you have not already done so. Could you let me know if you have? Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does it bother me so much to see this section? Because it involves two editors who apparently have some history coming to the talk page of Γνῶθι σεαυτόν and putting the editor down, trying to cast them as a POV-pushing, personal-version-of-truth-verification-be-dammned sort of editor, and then complaining about "snarky comments" cherrypicked from somewhere, which is ironic... in other words, it seems like a couple of editors with a bone to pick coming here to pick on this editor. It's not kind and it's not conducive of peace and freedom to edit well. It's intended to have a chilling effect to come here and say "jumping back into controversial topics is probably NOT a good idea"... how can that be construed except to be intended to have a chilling effect on this editor's editing? The alphabet soup using "BATTLEGROUND" and "TRUTH" are common tropes for people with this sort of silencing intention. I've been subject to it, and seen it used on others, like right here. Note that if you actually read WP:TRUTH, you will see that it is against pushing things into articles that are not verified with reliable sources. What i have seen this editor do is actually to push for better adherence to sources and better discernment about what is a reliable source versus a POV pushing source. What i have seen in this editor's editing history that i've looked at on a few articles is decidedly on the side of Wikipedia's guidelines. These two editors coming here feels like picking on Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, on the bullying spectrum, with intentions to quiet an editor whose POV they disagree with, and includes insinuations of false charges. SageRad (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also interesting to note that the editor who opened this section here is the same editor whom i just noticed has added unsourced innuendo to an article while stating that "consensus is pretty clearly the other way" in the edit reason, whereas, i had prior created this talk page section to address the topic, clearly indicating that there is not consensus to keep that content in the article. I would ask any uninvolved observer to discern who is POV-pushing here, and what is the nature of this section om the talk page of Γνῶθι σεαυτόν is not to accomplish a chilling of the editor in question? I see bad things going on here, so let us make it obvious. SageRad (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SageRad, if you're going to talk about me, please ping me, otherwise it looks like you're talking behind my back. Also your claim that this was "unsourced innuendo" is just mind numbingly ridiculous seeing as how more than thirty sources have been provided on talk.  Volunteer Marek   16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes there are many sources that mention that she was killed on Putin's birthday, but that is beside the point, as they all mention it as a source of conjecture about the killing. No reliable source does establish a proven connection to the date, and therefore if the date is to be mentioned, it cannot be as innuendo in Wikivoice, nor can it be claimed in Wikivoice that the date does have meaning, but only that it has been a source of conjecture for many who have written about it. This is the last time i am going to explain this distinction to you, as it's come up repeatedly. To have the date being Putin's birthday stated in Wikivoice in the article, without attribution, is unsourced innuendo. It's not such a difficult distinction to grasp, and this has been agreed by several editors. SageRad (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , if you have time, please take a look at the above comment by SageRad. If you follow the link he provides you will see that there are editors hell-bent on reinstating innuendos that can be viewed as WP:BLP violations. I have been warned by these very editors that trying to alert the community's public opinion constitutes WP: Canvassing. I don't believe that. However, I confess that I am not well conversant with Wikipedia's arcane web of policies. If I am wrong, please let me know. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd you just violated your topic ban regarding Politskovaya only a week after the conditional unblocking. Really. Stop it. Best thing you can do right now is just walk away from the controversial articles which landed you in trouble inthe first place.  Volunteer Marek   16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe i am dense, but i cannot see how the editor violated the conditions of their unblock. Could you provide me the specifics about this allegation? SageRad (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am tired of bull fights, I prefer literature. Since I take it that your mother tongue is Polish, allow me to ask you whether you have read Witold Gombrowicz? I daresay he is one of the best Polish writers of the twentieth century. I find his depiction of Jorge Luis Borges (for whom I have an unlimited admiration) hilarious.Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I read Ferdydurke and Pornografia long long time ago. I haven't read Trans-Atlantyk. My general assessment, IIRC, was "good, but overrated".  Volunteer Marek   22:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , the text referring to Jorge Luis Borges is in Trans-Atlantyk, if my memory is good. I read it in the eighties. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Hello, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν -- I've read most of the discussions above, and I'd just like to say a few things.

1) First, I'm sorry you chose a user name written in Greek. While the phrase is a good one, it is impossible for most English-speakers to read or say. I think it would have facilitated easier exchanges with you, and helped to foster a more collegial relationship with other editors, if you had chosen a name written in English and one that could be pronounced.

2) Second, it is clear from the quality of your writing that you are quite intelligent. You express yourself very well, and with virtually no errors. I think you have the potential to contribute a great deal to Wikipedia.

3) When you edit controversial topics, you have to expect some opposition to your edits and even to you. When discussing edits, it is important to stay calm, and make concisely written, reasoned replies, citing sources and WP policies. If you are having difficulty with edits, be patient. Other editors will join the discussion or revert edits when they come across them. You don't have to do everything yourself. If you proceed like this, you will become known as a constructive, level-headed editor, and you will get support for your opinions and good edits.

4) When experienced editors like Iryna Harpy and Drmies tell you things, you need to be quiet, carefully read what they have written, and think about it and your behavior, and not feel you have to respond to every one of their statements. I think you are trying to defend yourself too much. Even though you may feel like it sometimes, you are not on trial. If other editors add comments that you think are wrong, I suggest that you not even respond. Your statements, above, in which you clearly explain what happened, are fine, but just say them once. There is no need to repeat yourself. Your record as an editor should speak for itself and is actually your best defense, if one is needed. Good luck with your future editing! Corinne (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . First, I would like to thank you for your kind words and sound advice. I shall try to address your comments point by point.

1) I shared your concern in the beginning. You are certaily aware that my first username was "Againstdisinformation" and that I had to change it because it "irritated" some editors. My new choice was "Castigat ridendo mores", which can certainly be read by most English-speakers. My request was declined. Unwilling to choose a username like "Bunny and flowers", I settled for the Delphic precept. I now think that it is not such a bad choice, it is like a seal. People need not be able to read it. Also, it might encourage the editors who do not know what it means to look it up in Wikipedia

2) Thank you very much. If I make any error, which will no doubt happen, please have the kindness to point it out to me.

3) If all editors had the same gentle manner as you do, there would never have been any problem. I am used to heated, but courteous, debates in circles where no one would even dream of calling me by the names I have been called here. I shall have to adapt to the real world outside my ivory tower.

4) I hold Drmies in high regard and I have always read what he writes with great attention. Iryna Harpy, while probably well meaning, often addresses me in an overbearing tone and manner, using a language cluttered with wiki-jargon; this has the unintended effect of ruffling my feathers. I have also been saddened to see the amount of energy she deployed to keep me blocked. However, I bear her no grudge. Finally, you are right, I tend to defend myself too much. Even in circumstances where I know it would be wiser to keep quiet.

Thank you again for your comments. You will always be welcome on my talk page. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Sorry to bother you again, but if you just take a look at this you will grasp how the dedication of some users to my demise got me in trouble. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I had already read all of that. You are kind of doing it again: grasping at every bit of "evidence" that you have been wronged, and defending yourself to someone who has already praised you (that is, myself), so, you see, no further defense was necessary. I'm telling you to have a whole different approach here. Let me also add something else: there are more than 5 million articles on Wikipedia, and hundreds of thousands of editors. It is really and truly possible for you to edit different articles, even write your own new articles, and avoid certain editors, and have an enjoyable time editing. Corinne (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thank you for your support. Since you never made a comment on my case until very recently, I had no idea that you knew everything about it. Did you read about it on AN? I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I am trying to defend myself. I just wanted to let you know that less than a day after you left your first comment on my talk page, it was commented upon on another talk page. I have already contributed in a modest way to articles without logging in (I felt it would have been ludicrous to add content to articles within my field of competence under the username "Againstdisinformation"). There are indeed excellent articles on Wikipedia. My main concern is with regard to articles on current affairs, in my opinion Wikipedia would be better without them altogether. Since no one will agree to remove them, we should at least try to reduce the bias some of them contain to an acceptable level. Contrary to what the editors who make biased edits think, these edits do not further their views, but they seriously damage the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge, thereby ruining the efforts of editors who have made immense contributions to the encyclopedia anonymously. It is the work of these selfless editors, before whom I stand in awe, that I am trying awkwardly to defend. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you like Borges?
 * I only read what was on your talk page, and the material to which you supplied a link looked like something I had read above. (I didn't read it carefully, so maybe it wasn't.) Second, I understand what you are trying to do, but I haven't looked at any of your edits. If that's really what you are trying to do, your efforts are commendable. I think it must be difficult to persuade someone who is biased that a statement is biased. Third, yes, I like Borges but haven't read a lot of his work, just a little. I like the quotes on your user page. I wish you would provide translations for each of them. I also think you should change your user name to something in English. Corinne (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Let me amend this; I just remembered I had looked at just a few of your edits, some that were linked above by different editors. I based some of my first comments partially on what I saw. Corinne (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , please read "The Library of Babel", to which I provided a link. It is short, and I am certain you will find it very interesting. With regard to my username, I would prefer to wait a little. I am afraid that a new request, so soon after changing it, might be misinterpreted. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your questions
Yesterday, you pinged me two times on talk page of RT TV and asked questions. I can not answer these questions on article talk page because the banner on the page tells: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RT (TV network) article.", and your questions I think were not about improvement of the page, but I can reply here. So, do you want me to answer here or just go away and do not answer? My very best wishes (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite, . My comments, which were not questions, had everything to do with the improvement of the article and, more generally, with the way that article reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. You are free to do whatever you please. For my part, I will continue to point out on the article's talk page the changes I deem necessary to make it less biased. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do "whatever I please"? Then no further answer. I just thought it would be fair and polite to respond to your questions (and I can't answer on the article talk page by the rules). But if you do not care, then fine. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , my remark was in no way intended to be rude. I just wanted to convey to you that, although your rationale seems odd to me, you are free to leave comments on my talk page. Just as I feel free to leave comments on the article's talk page. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All right then. That is what I wanted to reply: you complain about a well sourced and NPOV page by debating completely irrelevant subjects (Galileo Galilei, Geology, Conservapedia, CNN, CIA, Karl Rove) and accusing other contributors (like here - I did nothing to "WP:POV railroad Masebrock"), which IS a violation of your unblock conditions. That's why other contributors do not support you on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, . Do you feel better now? Let me tell you something I am really convinced about, I hope that you won't take offence. Granted, you might find it pleasurable to see me blocked again, permanently this time. However, it would be a fleeting pleasure that would quickly turn sour. Why? Because it would add nothing positive to your life, nothing to be proud about. On the other hand, if you devoted the same energy you devote to have me ousted from Wikipedia to a more elevated endeavour, like solving the protein folding problem for example, it would fill you with a joy of a totally diferent magnitude and nature, and which would be much more lasting too. May the gods allow you to listen to my modest piece of advice. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I do not feel better, and you are not indeffed at this point (perhaps you can make a last-ditch effort and edit something else, preferably a subject that you know best?). But yes, I completely agree with you about my participation. I should not edit in WP at all. The only real reason to continue is actually my addiction. That's why I asked to block my account at one point. Maybe I should do it again. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, what about then taking advantage of your addiction in the way of constructive editing such as starting new articles or broadening existing ones instead of engaging in seemingly endless discussions that lead to nowhere, like this thread here. Dorpater (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)